Aerofly FS Motion platform support survey

  • Dear Aerofly FS users,


    we know quite a few user have been using Aerofly FS together with a motion platform. Unfortunately the way used to interface to those platforms was never intended for this purpose and we were forced to change this interface as it introduced issues and problems with other third party hardware and software that was receiving this data too fast.


    But we would like to bring back motion platform support to Aerofly FS again, but using a dedicated interface and version. So for this reason we would like to conduct a little survey here regarding Aerofly FS and Motion platform support.


    Please fill out this little survey, it gives us a better idea on the overall market demand and situation.


    Here is the link to it:


    Aerofly FS Motion Platform survey


    Best regards,

    Your Aerofly FS Development Team

  • If you do get support and "bring it back" will you be bringing it back at the same development speed as you are, say, adding better clouds and water. I'm just wondering whether to sell my motion platform. It was my special and expensive 50th birthday present gift from my wife for use with FS2 but as I have no interest in driving games or other flight sims its an expensive chair at the moment.


    If this is something that might be done in the near future I'll hang on to it.


    My worry is that motion platform support has now switched from being an existing part of the sim that gets fixed when its broken to one of the future nice to haves.

  • Submitted. My opinion: don't spend time on something only the happy few has but spend time om the simulation itself. ATC, weather, system depth, etc. 99% of the AFS2 users is wanting more of that. I'd be surprised if 2% of the users owns a motion platform. Not a priority, it seems to me.

  • Submitted. My opinion: don't spend time on something only the happy few has but spend time om the simulation itself. ATC, weather, system depth, etc. 99% of the AFS2 users is wanting more of that. I'd be surprised if 2% of the users owns a motion platform. Not a priority, it seems to me.

    I also spent a lot of money on a high quality yoke. Not a Saitek or CH Products, but made by Aircraft Controls Engineering. An ACE B737. Not many people will have these so it won't use the same circuitry as Saitek, Thrustmaster etc. Surely low down the priority if there's ever a glitch with the FS2's currently excellent, idiot proof recognition of just about any control peripheral. I know that X-Plane hasn't detected all my peripherals with the same ease as FS2.


    Maybe I just got lucky that FS2 currently detects most hardware without hassle, and IPACS never intended it to "just work"? I wonder how much of my investment in FS2 is vulnerable to this new strategy of just focussing on the functionality 90% of people use. Anyone else with an ACE, a Yoko, a PFC is presumably in this minority.


    I'm curious too if we'd all agree on what 90% of people really want? Do we all agree that ATC is more important that weather? Personally I only fly GA so I don't care for all the systems functionality people want to work on big aircraft, pushback. Perhaps I'm in a minority here too?

  • Why don't you guys code up an AFS SDK dll that interfaces with SimTools either via UDP or memory mapped files or whatever and release the source?


    Make it clear that it's not a fully supported part of the game but it should be enough for anyone to make their motion platform work.


    The AFS SDK should be a stable interface so that should always work.

    If the Simtools side changes, the community can fix it.


    Maybe I'm missing some complexity, but it seems straightforward from reading a few docs.

  • interfaces with SimTools

    SimTools doesn't work any more. SimTools talks to IPACS's DLL and that is what no longer provides the data to SimTools or anyone else.

  • SimTools doesn't work any more. SimTools talks to IPACS's DLL and that is what no longer provides the data to SimTools or anyone else.

    Ah OK. So the FS2 SDK no longer supports the messages that existing Simtools plugins use at all or fast enough, as far as I can work out.


    They should have gone with a system that allows data polling rather than message passing, so the SDK dll governs its own sample rate.

    This is probably what admin alludes to in the first post.


    They should have provided a config file setting that keeps existing motion platform users working in the meantime though (IMHO).

    Sounds like everything was working fine for your devices previously Spit40 ?

  • Gentlemen, please keep this thread solely for the purpose of the survey and not to open up a dialog of everything wrong with Aerofly.

    Thank you.

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.


    Regards,


    Jeff

  • I think it should be supported. Its a future high-end draw, and it's something that people expect, especially after its capability of doing so was featured and celebrated vis a vis VRmotion during the promotion of the R22.


    Also it would look quite strange if older sims could apparently support the feature with no issue and Aerofly could not.

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit /Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

  • That modus operandi that things get implemented (and working really well) and then pulled/broken without prior notice and no way to revert to the prior build is a tad frustrating.

    This is not to critisize your way of doing things, I suppose it’s how you want it to be, but please be aware that it is a perceived as rather annoying.

    That being said, I appreciate your intention to bring back motion support.

  • Those of us who have ventured into the realm of motion simulation with VR, find it hard (or at the least highly unsatisfactory) to look back on a time when there was no vestibular stimulation increasing realism (flowery language, but ya’ll catch my drift;-)). I absolutely LOVE the frame rates and dynamics of AFS2 in VR, and do not yearn for ATC, traffic or advanced weather, all of which would only serve to “bog down” the simulation towards the level exhibited in P3D or X-plane. Getting reliable telemetry back, in order to drive motion is critical for my future status as an enthusiastic AFS2 customer, and I don’t mind in the slightest if this becomes a payed “add-on” to recoup the development cost. Having seen the VRMotion development from Brunner, I was inspired to develop my own version of a professional helicopter VR-rig, and I was on the cusp of ordering a 6DoF platform when telemetry in AFS2 was corrupted coincident with the R22 release. Fingers crossed a solution is forthcoming!

    Flying A330 as a day-job and enjoy VR-flying with Oculus Rift, Samsung Odyssey+ and (hopefully) soon PIMAX 5k+. NextLevelRacing v.3 Motion platform, Watercooled and overclocked i9-9900k, 32Gb 3600RAM, Samsung 970EVO Pro 2Tb m.2, nVidia RTX-2080Ti FE, Thrustmaster HOTAS, VKB pedals, Cockpitforyou motorised throttle quadrant, Precision Flight Controls Jetliner column

  • I also spent a lot of money on a high quality yoke. Not a Saitek or CH Products, but made by Aircraft Controls Engineering. An ACE B737. Not many people will have these so it won't use the same circuitry as Saitek, Thrustmaster etc. Surely low down the priority if there's ever a glitch with the FS2's currently excellent, idiot proof recognition of just about any control peripheral. I know that X-Plane hasn't detected all my peripherals with the same ease as FS2.


    Maybe I just got lucky that FS2 currently detects most hardware without hassle, and IPACS never intended it to "just work"? I wonder how much of my investment in FS2 is vulnerable to this new strategy of just focussing on the functionality 90% of people use. Anyone else with an ACE, a Yoko, a PFC is presumably in this minority.


    I'm curious too if we'd all agree on what 90% of people really want? Do we all agree that ATC is more important that weather? Personally I only fly GA so I don't care for all the systems functionality people want to work on big aircraft, pushback. Perhaps I'm in a minority here too?

    I'll take the survey as I eagerly await support for my Yoko (reported in another thread) that I just purchased a few weeks ago. Bought the Next Level V3 and V2 flightsim cockpit a week prior to the Yoko. Fortunately for me, this is not the only platform that I use them for;).

    Redtail

    KFRG, KTEB, KEWR, KLGA

    ~Straighten up and fly right~


    DESKTOP: i7-7700k @5GHz (water cooled), Nvidia GTX 1080Ti FTW3, 32GB DDR4, 500GB SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Home 64 bit,

    TM HOTAS Warthog (large spring removed), Saitek PRO Flight Combat Rudder Pedals, YOKO yoke!

    Laptop (gaming): Acer Predator Helios 500- Intel Core i7-8750H @4.1GHz, Nvidia GTX 1070, 32GB DDR4, 256GB SSD/1TB HDD.

    Gametrix JetSeat FSE (Flight Sim Edition)-USB Vibrating pad. Nextlevel V3 Motion Platform / Sim cockpit.

  • Well, I think AFS2 is the future for flightsimming, and I like to see how it is developing, particularly the strong community involvement. I do not think it should be developed to cater exclusively for people with enough pocket money to buy VR sets, and motion platforms.

    MikeW

  • Hello Dr. Hotwing, i love the aerofly fs2 and buy all dlc, maybe its possible and easier to programm that you change the roll degree output from -90 to 0 then all simtools users and most motion simulator can change the problematic yaw output to roll and all problems are solved,

    greetings volker

  • Hello,

    I would like to speak in this discussion as the owner of the Aerofly FS 2 commercial license. First of all, big thanks go to the developers for making the game available on the STEAM platform for commercial use.


    I've chosen Aerofly FS 2 because it was listed, as one of the few games, on the list of games supported by motion platform (NLR V3). I selected the components of the simulator (motion platform, cockpit, UHD Curved 21: 9 screen monitor, X-56 HOTAS, VR goggles) to be compatible with the game. I bought the license at the beginning of November, having already purchased the equipment, when the game was still supported by motion platform.

    I am currently looking for other games to somehow utilize the purchased equipment, especially the motion platforms. It is a bit difficult considering the selection of individual elements of my simulator. I do not plan to continue using Aerofly FS 2 without a mobile platform.

    It will be a pity if the game is not supported by at least one of motion systems. At the occasion of the presentation at various events or simply in the games room, a lot of people can get to know the game or even learn about its existence.

    I hope that what I have written will contribute to the restoration of the game in particular on the NLR V3 motion platform.

  • I have experience flying a P3 Orion with the full-size motion simulator at Brunswick NAS, and the motion information provided by the tilting platform does little to convey the G-forces involved in flying. It does provide feedback to the vestibular system about tilt, but that is a limited subset of the motion-related information involved in maneuvering an aircraft. And the visual system provides excellent information about tilt that can be so convincing we experience "movement" even when sitting in a stationary chair. This is due to the phenomenon of "visual capture" where vision dominates the other senses when contradictory information is conveyed to the perceptual system: for example, when the visual display of the flight sim shows the aircraft is turning, but the vestibular sense says the pilot is not turning. A good account of this effect is here:


    Visual Capture


    Systems designed for home computer systems would be even more limited than those used by the major airlines, and would appeal to a limited market as well. So I am not sure this is an area IPACS should assign a high priority given other pressing demands. Just my two cents.

  • I'll say it like this ...

    I do not care if motion integration is perfect or not perfect.

    But it is a fact that our guests under VR with Motion had fun flying. Without the platform all became bad after a short time, (motion sickness) so that we could not use this since the end of November 2019.

    It does not matter to us now, we have said goodbye to AFS 2 and its DLC's and now find the existing alternatives, which also have much more dynamic not so bad.

    However, in the interest of all Motion owners, we nevertheless participated positively in the survey ...

  • ok for the survey.


    I used AFS2 for my work (research program in VR with motion platform 6 DOF).

    I had to compare flight in the real life versus flight in virtual life (HTC Vive).

    My laboratory bought this platform and an ASF2 licence.

    we used SDKs to developp new aircraft, new pist, and new environment (create a similar environment than the real environment).

    all this work for nothing since the bug. it's very furstrating...


    So, unfortunatly, i'll probably use another compatible flight simulator to continue my work...

  • Having never used a VR motion platform I may be talking out of my non VR motion backside but.


    I think we all agree that FS2 has one of the best helicopter sims in the market. As a heli pilot with plenty of real life heli simulator experience the one thing VR doesn't offer is the vertical sensation in the backside when applying collective. It would seem a shame IPACs cannot address the matter of motion support when there is possibly a growing market in the are that they have mastered so much better than anyone else, namely heli's


    Steve